I'm afraid the writer of this article has misunderstood the cause of the breakup of the Anglican communion. Here in the States, even in ultra-liberal Vermont, the divide has been forming for years, long before the Africans got involved. We welcome their strength and their hope for the future.

Here is how this "mere Christian" sees it. There are certain beliefs that define what it is to be a Christian. Increasingly, the Episcopal Church and some other Anglican provinces have picked and chosen which of these beliefs to hold. It is sort of like negotiating with God, except not allowing Him to participate. Eventually, these Anglican provinces will be similar to the Unitarian Church: a group of good people, but not Christians. Therefore, many of us who are Christians simply must leave. It you wanted to only play rugby, and the rugby team you joined suddenly decided to play only video games, then the best course would be to join another rugby team.

Those who oppose homosexualaity have a biblically valid point because this is plain in the Bible. Anglicans who have no problem with homosexuality cannot cite any passage in the Bible to support their view. Yet I still believe that Gene Robinson & Co have a point. If Wilberforce campaigned against slavery despite what the Bible says about it(see Ephesians 6:6),why can't Gene Robinson remain an Anglican despite what the Bible says about homosexulaity?

[ "In terms of the New Testament, I would say the only things that are nonnegotiable are the actual teachings of Jesus." ]

["I would say..."] As noted theologian Dr. John MacArthur once said: "The Bible stands as truth even if I had never been born. My personal 'opinion' does not change the meaning one whit." That only the words of Jesus are truth is a modern view - an attempt to make acceptable the Biblically condemned. Furthermore, Jesus Himself declared that God's Word was TRUTH (John 17:17). Since the New Testament had not been written at the time, Jesus must have been referring to the Scriptures that became the Old Testament. Jesus also appealed to "Moses and the Prophets" (the first five books of the Bible plus the Prophetic writings) to validate that He was the prophesied Messiah (Luke 24:27). If all of the rest of Scripture is "negotiable" as you have said, then the appeal of Jesus to other Scripture to validate His Messiahship is for naught. That being said, you must certainly agree that since Jesus Himself taught marriage was to be between a male and a female (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9) - with no other option ever voiced by Him - that by His own words Jesus took homosexual marriage off the table.

Typical economist commentary, plenty to write without substance, truth or forthrightness. How about you just tell what the Bible, which all the Bishops derive their teachings from, says. Simple and clear enough, the Bible is against Homosexuality? The Africans ought to be praised for refusing to be bullied.

The issue is not "containing homosexuality". The issue is having a conservative or liberal view of scripture. The groups who affirm the practice of homosexuality are typically more liberal in almost every way. That is because their underlying view of scriptural authority is different than that of conservative Christians.

The rejection of Christian revisionists by African Anglicans is in keeping with fundamental teachings of the Bible.It has to be realised that adherance to the principles of the Bible is a matter of faith since it is acknowledged that most of its original contents were altered by the West to conform with its culture.
Through its domination of Africa and other parts of the world the West imposed its restyled version of the Bible to most of Africa.The attempt to have the church adopt the Soddom and Gomorah culture now shall be resisted by all true believers.

It's true that Christanity and Islam have old histories in much of Africa. But a relatively small part. In most places, traditional beliefs prevailed until missionaries came along. I saw first hand how an African culture got destroyed by missionaries. They come, destroy all the traditional belies and values, and go. For more info, you can visit: stopchristianmissionaries.blogspot.com.I know that their in no one belief. And that is how is should be like. Why do Christian missionaries want to dydtroy African culture?Africans today are lost. They have no history or culture to turn to. Their cloths, religion, stories--all Western. Few things are truly African.Indians--they have an 8000 year old religion and world view to turn to. Chinese also have their ancient philosophy to turn to. Same is true for Europeans and Muslims.However, Africans have lost all their traditions, beliefs, etc. I've seen it first hand

In terms of the New Testament, I would say the only things that are nonnegotiable are the actual teachings of Jesus. Anything else, such as the letters of Mark or the various councils that have been held in the last 2000 years, are the works of humans. As such, they should be subject to revision as needed to keep up with the times.

In terms of the Old Testament, which books did God write? The first five were written by Moses. The book of Amos was written by Amos, Isaiah was written by Isaiah, Hosea was written by Hosea, etc. What we are reading is not the actual word of God, but merely the interpretation of humans as to what His/Her/Its thoughts were. Remember, too, that the Bible was compiled for a simple, nomadic people. It would of necessity need to be written in a manner to which they could relate. However, as times change, so should the teachings. For instance, how would you explain television to someone who lived 1000 years ago?

>> While I don't claim (as Akinola does) to know the mind of God, I imagine that the Master of the Universe is not happy. <<

The obvious flaw in this statement is - regarding the homosexual life-style, God has clearly revealed "His mind" in His Word. Anyone reading the several places (at least 5 in both the Old and New Testaments) where scripture deals with homosexuality, it is always condemned in the severest terms. Modern culture (and even not a few in the "church") try to equivocate or explain away scripture to molify the fallen culture - but God's Word stands - irrespective of whatever spin the culture trys to put on it. If the "Master of the Universe is not happy," I imagine it is not Akinola with whom He is unhappy.

Yes, 2-Nuts, as others have pointed out, I am afraid you are, to some extent, misguided about the notion of "traditional" religion in Africa. While many diverse forms of indigenous worship continue to exist, the idea that there is a certain pan-African faith or even belief system is just as "colonial" as the mindset that encouraged Christian missionaries in their earnest efforts at conversion in the first place.That being said, it is my VERY limited opinion that much of this conflict must be viewed in terms of the history of colonialism. It seems to me that the Anglican church, at least in Africa, has moved beyond a struggle against its very obvious remnants-such as apartheid-into the growing pains of being "post-apartheid" or "post-colonial." Indeed such a transition might be seen, symbolically, in the shift in Anglican leadership from Desmond Tutu to Peter Akinola. It appears that much of the language coming out of GAFCON (or at least from Akinola) finds itself phrased in protest against what is perceived as a bullying and domineering Church of England that would like nothing more than to retain the ecclesiastical and theological power that it has always held; for a perfect example of this kind of thinking, see Chris Sugden's op-ed piece in the International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/24/opinion/edsugden.php).Hasn't the African Anglican community's rhetoric of protest simply shifted its focus from more obvious symbols of colonialism to what is perceived as the representative counterpart? To GAFCON, the Church of England under Rowan Atkinson continues to perpetuate the same evils of dominance Imperial Britain was-and perhaps still is-guilty of in the not-to-distant past.

Akinola's ego has gotten the better of his loyalty to his God and has to be reined in. He is using the issues abouot sexuality to drive a wedge in a centuries-old union and he should be restrained by the rest of the communion.

I have Anglican/Episcopalian friends and they are deeply pained by the way this is going. While I don't claim (as Akinola does) to know the mind of God, I imagine that the Master of the Universe is not happy.

No question about it. BUT not to the exclusion of Truth. The Church, above all, must be a vessel of BIBLICAL TRUTH (not what the fallen culture "wishes" to be truth). Otherwise, you do not have a true Church but simply a religious social club calling itself a church.

In America, the Episcopal Church is viewed as a theological train wreck along with the Presbyterian (PCUSA) branch - and the Methodist Church is speeding head-long down the same track (or as Spurgeon might put it - the same "down grade". Many clergy in the modern "church" are little more than doormen for the "wide gate that leads to destruction" - and many laymen are so illiterate concerning God's Word that they don't understand where they are being lead. The reason the African Anglican Church recoils at Canterbury is "His sheep know His voice" and they don't hear "His voice" coming out of Canterbury.

>> in the Bible there is not one instance where Jesus speaks about homosexuality... <<

If by that you mean Jesus never used the word "homosexual," you are correct. But Jesus never used the word pedophilia either and it would be silly to infer that Jesus thought it was alright. But this does not mean Jesus didn't express an opinion on homosexual marriage. In Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus said: “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female? For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate." Jesus took the Pharisees all the way back to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 and affirmed God’s original intent for marriage - "male and female." Compelling insight from Jesus.

That last question is easy to answer, in the Bible there is not one instance where Jesus speaks about homosexuality, and in fact many instances where he speaks about helping the poor and suffering. Could it be we are getting worked up about small details and missing the big picture?

Also, similar to Christianity, Islam was being spread into Africa in its early days, even before much of the Arab world had warmed up to Islam. Meaning these are religions with roots in Africa, also their practice in Africa is influenced by African cultures. Regardless a person should be free to believe in whatever they choose to believe in. Preserving culture is important but that should not force beliefs onto someone who does not agree.

The Anglican Church across the Globe does itself a serious disservice with the focus on sexuality and gender issues. The Church of England has been debating the ordination of female Bishops and gay bishops. It's the 21st century for goodness sakes. The Church is losing people and they are not bringing in even the 'dormant Christians'. The Church should be a vessel for healing and love. If it can't show those values within itself there is little hope of spreading it elsewhere.If Jesus came today would he care about female or gay bishops or will he wonder about famine, hunger, pain and suffering across the globe? The Anglican church in Africa has a job to do and that job is not breaking away from the CofE but spreading love across a Continent in pain.

What sort of comment is this, 2-Nuts? You are totally wrong.1) The Christian faith has been in Africa since the 1st C. AD, all over North Africa. The Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt being the prime example2) The Christian faith was embraced in Africa long before most European lands had even heard of it.3) The Christian faith has been growing very fast in Africa AFTER the colonial powers left.So Christianity in Africa is old, vibrant, and independent. And praise God, the churches of Africa take their faith seriously, and are now standing up against the worn-out liberalism of the UK and the USA.

Africa needs to return to her ancient, traditional religions. Having a foreign religion like Christanity or Islam (that was mostly imposed on Africans) is like having cloths that are foreign to you: They don't represent your peoples and history and signify a disdain for traditional African culture. The Christian missionary should stop the conversions, and the African ought to have more respect for his culture.